Afghanistan and the Teekell Doctrine
Greg Reeson
October 20, 2008
Afghanistan and the Teekell Doctrine
A week or so ago it was revealed that a leaked cable from a French diplomat claimed the British Ambassador to Afghanistan had referred to the current strategy against the Taliban and al Qaeda as "doomed to fail" and had called for the installation of an "acceptable dictator" as the best solution.
The news reports surrounding Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles´ comments brought back memories of a conversation I had with a colleague over a few 12-year old scotches and some fine cigars. During that conversation, my colleague and friend offered up his theory on how best to pacify Iraq. Since his last name is Teekell, we dubbed it the Teekell Plan.
Before discussing the Teekell Plan, though, let´s quickly review what´s happening in Afghanistan right now. First, the Taliban has made a comeback. Feeling increasingly confident and financed by a lucrative drug trade, Taliban fighters are conducting more brazen attacks that are terrifying the Afghan population, killing increasing numbers of NATO soldiers, and creating the perception that the U.S.-led coalition is losing the war. Second, the Karzai government is corrupt and weak, and capable of exerting virtually no authority outside of Kabul.
Third, the Afghan Army and Police, while getting better, are still a long way from being able to do anything independently. The presence of coalition forces will be necessary for an extended period of time if Afghanistan is to have a military that is competent and answerable to the Afghan people. Fourth, NATO forces are hindering military operations more than they are helping them. National caveats, inadequate funding, capability shortfalls and insufficient troop levels force the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Denmark and The Netherlands to bear most of the combat and logistical burden. Finally, the lack of any real effort by Pakistan to establish some semblance of control over its side of the border means insurgent fighters are able to launch attacks against Afghan and coalition forces and then return to safe havens in Pakistan with near impunity. A new National Intelligence Estimate expected to be released soon reportedly says the situation in Afghanistan is spiraling out of control.
So the United States is reassessing its strategy. More U.S. troops are scheduled to deploy to Afghanistan. America is asking NATO for more troops and an easing of restrictions on how those troops operate. There is talk of direct negotiation with the Taliban, just not those associated with al Qaeda. But the reality is that NATO will not step up to the plate and agree to the requests made by the United States. And negotiations with the Taliban may or may not prove productive. In the end, elected governments and the Taliban are not really compatible.
Still, a new strategy is definitely in order. The Taliban is waging a war of attrition against our political will. We cannot continue on the current course indefinitely. And simply adding more U.S. forces won´t do the trick. NATO and the United States currently have just over 50,000 troops in Afghanistan. The Soviets had more than 100,000. If they couldn´t pacify the country with twice the number of soldiers, what makes us think we can with the resources available to us?
Our ultimate goal should be a stable and peaceful Afghanistan (notice I didn´t say democratic – that´s most likely a bridge too far) that does not ever again become a refuge for terrorists with global aspirations. A step toward that goal could very well be the implementation of an "acceptable dictator."
Returning to my colleague´s proposal, the Teekell Plan´s beauty is in its simplicity. It simply calls for the installation of a strong man, or dictator, in countries where ethnic strife makes it virtually impossible for the establishment of a normal society based on the rule of law and the common good. Let´s face it. Democracy is not going to take hold in every country we would like it to. It´s time to understand the reality of the situation and realize that Afghanistan is one of those places where the right dictator could bring order to the chaos. A U.S.-backed strong man that is at least tolerant of American interests is far preferable to the strategy we are currently employing.
That is not to say that implementation of the Teekell Plan would be easy. As my colleague explained, the Teekell Plan would be a bit problematic in Afghanistan because the central authority required under the plan would be difficult or impossible in certain parts of the country. Simply put, some areas in Afghanistan would be tough to control from Kabul or Kandahar. These areas would have to be isolated.
But it could be done. The last person to rule Afghanistan from Kabul was Mohammed Zahir Shah, and his reign lasted some forty years until he was ousted from power in a coup in 1973. All it takes is a strong man with a powerful personality and the loyalty of the security forces to keep the populace in check. Case in point: Saddam Hussein.
And since the Teekell Plan, which was originally conceived of as a strategy for Iraq, can be implemented in other places, such as Afghanistan, the term "plan" does not really suffice. As my colleague said to me in a recent email, the Teekell Plan is "applicable to just about any Third World sh*thole where there´s very little rule of law and where power grows out of a gun…." Since the Teekell Plan can be applied in more than one region, another colleague noted, it is more fitting to label it the "Teekell Doctrine."
Perhaps it´s time for the United States to consider implementing the Teekell Doctrine, or some variant of it, in Afghanistan and Iraq in order to bring some stability to two countries in desperate need of a break from war. Then the U.S. could relieve some of the stress on an overstretched military and free up forces to respond to other potential crises around the world.
A week or so ago it was revealed that a leaked cable from a French diplomat claimed the British Ambassador to Afghanistan had referred to the current strategy against the Taliban and al Qaeda as "doomed to fail" and had called for the installation of an "acceptable dictator" as the best solution.
The news reports surrounding Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles´ comments brought back memories of a conversation I had with a colleague over a few 12-year old scotches and some fine cigars. During that conversation, my colleague and friend offered up his theory on how best to pacify Iraq. Since his last name is Teekell, we dubbed it the Teekell Plan.
Before discussing the Teekell Plan, though, let´s quickly review what´s happening in Afghanistan right now. First, the Taliban has made a comeback. Feeling increasingly confident and financed by a lucrative drug trade, Taliban fighters are conducting more brazen attacks that are terrifying the Afghan population, killing increasing numbers of NATO soldiers, and creating the perception that the U.S.-led coalition is losing the war. Second, the Karzai government is corrupt and weak, and capable of exerting virtually no authority outside of Kabul.
Third, the Afghan Army and Police, while getting better, are still a long way from being able to do anything independently. The presence of coalition forces will be necessary for an extended period of time if Afghanistan is to have a military that is competent and answerable to the Afghan people. Fourth, NATO forces are hindering military operations more than they are helping them. National caveats, inadequate funding, capability shortfalls and insufficient troop levels force the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Denmark and The Netherlands to bear most of the combat and logistical burden. Finally, the lack of any real effort by Pakistan to establish some semblance of control over its side of the border means insurgent fighters are able to launch attacks against Afghan and coalition forces and then return to safe havens in Pakistan with near impunity. A new National Intelligence Estimate expected to be released soon reportedly says the situation in Afghanistan is spiraling out of control.
So the United States is reassessing its strategy. More U.S. troops are scheduled to deploy to Afghanistan. America is asking NATO for more troops and an easing of restrictions on how those troops operate. There is talk of direct negotiation with the Taliban, just not those associated with al Qaeda. But the reality is that NATO will not step up to the plate and agree to the requests made by the United States. And negotiations with the Taliban may or may not prove productive. In the end, elected governments and the Taliban are not really compatible.
Still, a new strategy is definitely in order. The Taliban is waging a war of attrition against our political will. We cannot continue on the current course indefinitely. And simply adding more U.S. forces won´t do the trick. NATO and the United States currently have just over 50,000 troops in Afghanistan. The Soviets had more than 100,000. If they couldn´t pacify the country with twice the number of soldiers, what makes us think we can with the resources available to us?
Our ultimate goal should be a stable and peaceful Afghanistan (notice I didn´t say democratic – that´s most likely a bridge too far) that does not ever again become a refuge for terrorists with global aspirations. A step toward that goal could very well be the implementation of an "acceptable dictator."
Returning to my colleague´s proposal, the Teekell Plan´s beauty is in its simplicity. It simply calls for the installation of a strong man, or dictator, in countries where ethnic strife makes it virtually impossible for the establishment of a normal society based on the rule of law and the common good. Let´s face it. Democracy is not going to take hold in every country we would like it to. It´s time to understand the reality of the situation and realize that Afghanistan is one of those places where the right dictator could bring order to the chaos. A U.S.-backed strong man that is at least tolerant of American interests is far preferable to the strategy we are currently employing.
That is not to say that implementation of the Teekell Plan would be easy. As my colleague explained, the Teekell Plan would be a bit problematic in Afghanistan because the central authority required under the plan would be difficult or impossible in certain parts of the country. Simply put, some areas in Afghanistan would be tough to control from Kabul or Kandahar. These areas would have to be isolated.
But it could be done. The last person to rule Afghanistan from Kabul was Mohammed Zahir Shah, and his reign lasted some forty years until he was ousted from power in a coup in 1973. All it takes is a strong man with a powerful personality and the loyalty of the security forces to keep the populace in check. Case in point: Saddam Hussein.
And since the Teekell Plan, which was originally conceived of as a strategy for Iraq, can be implemented in other places, such as Afghanistan, the term "plan" does not really suffice. As my colleague said to me in a recent email, the Teekell Plan is "applicable to just about any Third World sh*thole where there´s very little rule of law and where power grows out of a gun…." Since the Teekell Plan can be applied in more than one region, another colleague noted, it is more fitting to label it the "Teekell Doctrine."
Perhaps it´s time for the United States to consider implementing the Teekell Doctrine, or some variant of it, in Afghanistan and Iraq in order to bring some stability to two countries in desperate need of a break from war. Then the U.S. could relieve some of the stress on an overstretched military and free up forces to respond to other potential crises around the world.
Print
Email
